Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

I hear this nationalistic mantra all the time when people want to justify denying refugees asylum, instituting protectionist policies, deporting illegal immigrants, etc. Even when the aggregate impact on humanity is positive, many Americans still think that it's more important to prioritize people that happen to be US citizens. The even more bizarre argument is that even when the proposed policy aligns with American interests, like expanding h1b1 visas, many oppose it on the grounds that it "hurts American workers". Never mind that these immigrants would then be considered Americans and thus their interests would matter to us even under their framework; we can only focus on people who are Americans now.

Of course, most American citizens got that way through sheer luck, .i.e. being born on American soil. Yet the same people who yammer about "entitlement programs" and "wealth redistribution" are resolute about one of the single greatest "entitlements" in human history; being born into a modern western society.

I understand, firstly, that it is rational to prioritize American interests to a reasonable degree to ensure our own continued survival and prosperity, given that this is typically good for the world too, and that secondly, people have an ingrained instinct to value their "tribe" over "outsiders", but is there any philosophically sound justification? Something something about the social contract?

Why not America first, should we put the rest of the world first before our own people? Can you honestly say you care about the rest of the world more then you care about our current people that need jobs and help?

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Why not America first

Because most Americans were given that label by complete chance, .i.e. being born here.

Good for us. This is our country. Fate and chance are part of life.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Good for us. This is our country.

Yeah...does anyone else have a more intellectually satisfying argument that isn't circular?

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Fate and chance are part of life.

Is-ought fallacy.

I was not born with millions of dollars, should I be entitled to it cause other people have it?

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
I was not born with millions of dollars, should I be entitled to it cause other people have it?

How would you like it if you were immediately thrown into a concentration camp rampant with malaria, lacking in basic medical supplies, and devoid of any social mobility, because your parents gave birth to you in town B instead of town A?

I didnt know the US was placing people in concentration camps.

Because there's no reason for somebody to take responsibility for anybody else than himself. Simple as that. You're responsible for yourself; your family is responsible for itself; your country is responsible for itself.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
I didnt know the US was placing people in concentration camps.

There are some really sh*tty countries where that's basically the case. My point being that you wouldn't like it if you had to live under those conditions just because you were born in the wrong place.

This is doubly unfair if your moving into the better place would actually help that better place.

Originally posted by JKBart
Because there's no reason for somebody to take responsibility for anybody else than himself. Simple as that. You're responsible for yourself; your family is responsible for itself; your country is responsible for itself.

Didn't your hero think differently? mmm

He attempted to make whole Europe his own country so he's another topic

I was not born into royalty, but since I want to be Royalty, I should be entitled to it based on the premise of this thread.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
I was not born into royalty, but since I want to be Royalty, I should be entitled to it based on the premise of this thread.

Royalty is an unfair concept for this very reason.

Do you think it would be fair if people born in Massachusetts received different constitutional rights from those born in Texas, and you weren't allowed to move?

Originally posted by JKBart
He attempted to make whole Europe his own country so he's another topic
Charles V?

Originally posted by The Ellimist
Royalty is an unfair concept for this very reason.

Do you think it would be fair if people born in Massachusetts received different constitutional rights from those born in Texas, and you weren't allowed to move?

The federal constitution applies the same to all states, state constitutions are different between the states.

And Royalty is a completely fair analogy. As was money, property rights or anything else we can chose.

@TI: the other thing that you're missing is that we're not talking about giving people free things; we're talking about giving them the opportunity to compete in the market. You're proposing a system that prevents people from buying property in the United States even if they have the money, or working at a company even if the company wants to hire them. The hypocritical part is, you rant a lot about government regulations, and yet seem to think this completely arbitrary one is totally fine.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
The federal constitution applies the same to all states, state constitutions are different between the states.

Yes, but nobody stops you from moving between states, nor would anyone want to do that. That's the point.

I don't think you're catching onto the fact that I'm using, you know, analogies.

Because this is the united states. No one stops people in EU from moving countries because of a union.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Because this is the united states. No one stops people in EU from moving countries because of a union.

This is purely an is-ought fallacy. You haven't explained how this makes sense.

An agreement between nations/states to allow people to move freely does not make sense to you?

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
An agreement between nations/states to allow people to move freely does not make sense to you?



Of course it does. That's what I'm proposing.

"Even when the aggregate impact on humanity is positive, many Americans still think that it's more important to prioritize people that happen to be US citizens. "

Yes we prioritize our people first.

When you go to the ATM or grocery store, do you cut in front of the line because you might feel you deserve to not wait like everyone else?

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Yes we prioritize our people first.


Are you capable of presenting a well articulated argument instead of just repeating yourself?



No, but we don't ban certain people from using ATM's because they were born into the Wilkenson family instead of the Johnson one.

Are you capable of not being an ass when I am clearly just having a civil conversation with you?

Do you prioritize strangers over you family?

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Do you prioritize strangers over you family?

Why are you throwing out bad analogies/hypotheticals instead of giving an argument?

Like: "prioritizing Americans make sense because of X, Y, and Z".

Assuming you don't then edit it in.

I didnt know that is what you were looking for but ok

1. It gives our people who were born here access to what their parents put in, and the process repeats.
2. It gives our people jobs, vs the rest of the world.
3. It makes America stronger by uniting our own people instead of trying to assimilate the world.

Edit:spelling

Us vs. Them.


F*ck them.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
1. It gives our people who were born here access to what their parents put in, and the process repeats.


Three problems (or at least, I'll mention three):

1. The United States is a nation of immigrants. If everyone followed your rationale, we wouldn't have existed in the first place.

2. Many of our country's most important accomplishments were made by first or second generation immigrants. See: the Manhattan Project, Apollo 11, the polio vaccine, etc.

3. The benefits don't just pass down to your children anyway; if I invent an important piece of software, lots of other people can benefit from it, and we think this is a good thing (that's what jobs are for).



Circular argument. The question is why this distinction is important.



Why are the two mutually exclusive? Plenty of research shows that immigrants are actually more patriotic and politically informed on average than native borns.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Us vs. Them.


F*ck them.

Originally posted by The Ellimist
Three problems (or at least, I'll mention three):

1. The United States is a nation of immigrants. If everyone followed your rationale, we wouldn't have existed in the first place.

2. Many of our country's most important accomplishments were made by first or second generation immigrants. See: the Manhattan Project, Apollo 11, the polio vaccine, etc.

3. The benefits don't just pass down to your children anyway; if I invent an important piece of software, lots of other people can benefit from it, and we think this is a good thing (that's what jobs are for).



Circular argument. The question is why this distinction is important.



Why are the two mutually exclusive? Plenty of research shows that immigrants are actually more patriotic and politically informed on average than native borns.

This can explain exactly how I feel, better then I can explain. With 100% truth and facts.

LPjzfGChGlE

America first is what led to this mess in the first place. The US and the EU and Russia keep destabilizing other regimes.

Originally posted by The Ellimist
I understand, firstly, that it is rational to prioritize American interests to a reasonable degree to ensure our own continued survival and prosperity, given that this is typically good for the world too, and that secondly, people have an ingrained instinct to value their "tribe" over "outsiders", but is there any philosophically sound justification? Something something about the social contract?
If you understand, then you're asking because you dont like it, and want a chance to say so, repeatedly, to anyone naive enough to try and give you an answer you dont actually care about or want.
What you want is an audience.
Have fun with that, you've come to the right place (the internet).

^ my impression as well.

That aside, to attempt a philosophical justification, I've often heard the "melting pot" of America is a "great experiment", that the US may serve (however imperfectly) as a model for the world-at-large as globalization continues. Can we all just get along, or not?

But basically, ethnocentrism rules.

Originally posted by krisblaze
America first is what led to this mess in the first place. The US and the EU and Russia keep destabilizing other regimes.

Actually Britons Crimes exist far and wide, from the deepest places in Africa and slavery, as well as many other atrocities all over the world for the past 500-600 years. The reason we left Britain was because how awful it was, thank God you guys are getting it right now with Brexit.

Well you know I can fully understand that the whole "America First" or the just overall notion of "my country first" can have its downsides, but then again I just look at Europe..I look at Germany.

I look at legal German citizens being evicted from their homes in order to make room for refugee's. I see some people who have lived in the same place for decades being evicted to make room for refugee's. I look at that and I wonder if maybe they shouldn't have been a bit more vocal about "Germany first". I see German officials making lame excuses like "but but we would have needed to put beds in a gym!" in order to justify that bullshit.

Can you imagine that, though? Like okay you obviously feel it's good to help outsiders, but even you can't be on board with EVICTING someone from their home so that refugee's can live there?

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
This can explain exactly how I feel, better then I can explain. With 100% truth and facts.

LPjzfGChGlE

nuff said

I also feel we need to take steps to make it so businesses don't want to use illegal labor. They want it because they can pay them under the table. If we remove that ability then they have no legit reason to continue to use illegal labor.

How do we do this? I have no clue. Perhaps vastly more severe punishments for those caught doing it? Plus fines, lots of fines. They are greedy because they want money, so hit them where it hurts. Pile so many fines and fee's on that it just isn't viable for them to continue to use illegal labor.

Its all in the video dude. You are making it out to be way more complex then it needs to be, the video explains why even legal immigration does not work and will destroy America.

Here is the problem I can see: we still have serious issues in this country. We have issues that need fixing. I feel these are more important than issues outside the country, however the problem is our government. Our government f*cks with other countries. They set up coup de tats and all kinds of other shit. They give weapons to folks in other countries, etc. Some of these acts they haven't done in decades, but even still the effects of those choices reverberate into the present day.

So it almost reminds me of a child actor whose shitty parents spend ALL their earnings on themselves and once the kid turns 18 he is left with shit. That is how I feel. Our "parents" left us the shittiest legacy ever.

Sorry, but immigration wont fix it. You don't dump gas on fire.

Originally posted by riv6672
If you understand, then you're asking because you dont like it, and want a chance to say so, repeatedly, to anyone naive enough to try and give you an answer you dont actually care about or want.
What you want is an audience.
Have fun with that, you've come to the right place (the internet).

Well, from your ad hominems I'm guessing you don't have an answer. And yeah, that does confirm my suspicions.

Originally posted by Surtur
Well you know I can fully understand that the whole "America First" or the just overall notion of "my country first" can have its downsides, but then again I just look at Europe..I look at Germany.

I look at legal German citizens being evicted from their homes in order to make room for refugee's. I see some people who have lived in the same place for decades being evicted to make room for refugee's. I look at that and I wonder if maybe they shouldn't have been a bit more vocal about "Germany first". I see German officials making lame excuses like "but but we would have needed to put beds in a gym!" in order to justify that bullshit.

Can you imagine that, though? Like okay you obviously feel it's good to help outsiders, but even you can't be on board with EVICTING someone from their home so that refugee's can live there?

I don't know about evicting people, but there's a bit of a balance between that and the opposite extreme, right?

If you're talking about refugee's..the question becomes: do we have a way to vet all the refugee's that would come into the country?

Well, we can start with the children, who are probably not going to commit felonies.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
This can explain exactly how I feel, better then I can explain. With 100% truth and facts.

LPjzfGChGlE

/thread

Originally posted by The Ellimist
Well, we can start with the children, who are probably not going to commit felonies.

Wouldn't that mean taking kids away from their parents?

It would. Given how long the American process is for screening refugees, if you give immediate access to children, you're going to have them living in the States without their parents a couple years. All on the taxpayers dime (because money is the only important thing ever).

As said, Immigration is destroying the world, are people not getting that?

Originally posted by Surtur
Wouldn't that mean taking kids away from their parents?

For a while? We're not forcing them to stay. Many parents may realize that foster care in the U.S. is superior to living in a nuclear family in a lot of countries.

For up to several years. The American screening process for refugees is ridiculously tight. If you give immediate access to the children, they're going to be living in a foreign land, whose language they don't understand, away from their parents. That may be a dream for teenagers and 20-somethings out of college, but not for children.

"Refugee" implies migration from an area under some sort of emergency situation, like, say, genocide or civil war. This is, at least, sometimes the case. Something tells me that having a language barrier isn't the worst evil to pick.

I'm not getting what you're getting at here. You're saying that, in the case of refugees, you want to immediately let the children in while the parents go through the vetting process?

I dont think anyone here knows exactly what immigration does.

* a streamlined vetting process. That's not necessarily the ideal solution, but it's better than the status quo, and probably requires less political capital.

Why have immigration at all? Makes no sense anymore. Americans are not allowed to mass immigrate anywhere else. Why should we allow it here.

Originally posted by The Ellimist
That's not necessarily the ideal solution, but it's better than the status quo. I agree, the current system isn't exactly great. But can you not see how psychologically damaging it would be to the children? The U.S. screening process for refugees can take up to two years before they even leave whatever refugee camp they're applying out of (Jordan or Turkey, most likely). There's alot of changes that need to be made, but if one of those steps involves taking children away from their parents and families, that's nothing but trouble.


To say nothing of the huge issue of sheltering these kids (Stateside) and making sure whatever foster homes or internment camps they're kept in are treating them properly. Ensuring an education for them while they wait, teaching them English, etc. This is a huge and sudden shift in their lives, and they have to go through it essentially alone. That's going to take a huge toll on their emotional and social development. Not likely a good one. No matter how often their physical safety is stressed or guaranteed, the words "separate children from their parents" is just awful, and should be avoided as often as possible.

EDIT: If you're going to bring them here anyway, bring whole families to live in internment camps. They won't be able to leave, they'll still be vetted, their physical safety still guaranteed, AND you won't be taking children away from their parents.

Originally posted by The Ellimist
* a streamlined vetting process. That's not necessarily the ideal solution, but it's better than the status quo, and probably requires less political capital. Ideally, but Americans are paranoid when it comes to safety, so streamlining may come at the cost of making people more cowardly than they already are.

I mean a streamlined process for the kids.

As for internment camps, that goes back to the political capital issue: people aren't going to like the idea of having "internment camps", but they'll be fine with foster care for child refugees. It's difficult for a politician to sell the notion that they're sleeper cell terrorists or something. Now maybe if we give these camps a better name, you could try it. Honestly though, you're almost certainly going to end up with shitty conditions and all sorts of problems with abuse and mistreatment, given that it's essentially a prison.

What happens if the parents fail the vetting?

Originally posted by The Ellimist
I mean a streamlined process for the kids.

As for internment camps, that goes back to the political capital issue: people aren't going to like the idea of having "internment camps", but they'll be fine with foster care for child refugees. It's difficult for a politician to sell the notion that they're sleeper cell terrorists or something. Now maybe if we give these camps a better name, you could try it. Honestly though, you're almost certainly going to end up with shitty conditions and all sorts of problems with abuse and mistreatment, given that it's essentially a prison.

What happens if the parents fail the vetting? Exactly. There's no easy, or simple, or cleanly ethical solution for dealing with every single case. Foster homes would be great, but for the large numbers, it's not a reliable solution. Fostering an Arabic-speaking, young child from a warzone is something you devote full time to. Aside from simply needing people to volunteer for it, you need them to actually be capable of supporting and caring for the child. That's a vetting process all on it's own.

Currently there's over 400,000 children in foster homes in the U.S. Of the 1 million+ Syrian refugees in Lebanon alone, an estimated 53% of them are children (to say nothing of those in Turkey, Jordan, Iraq etc.). In a nation already filled with people who hate and fear foreigners, especially if they're brown, Arabic, and Muslim... we'd be looking at a catastrophic shortage of 1.) volunteer households, 2.) households actually suitable for foster children, and 3.) the logistical infrastructure to acclimate/assimilate/integrate them into the family/neighborhood/culture.

Fostering as a viable solution to parent-less child refugees is the proverbial water pumps used on the Titanic ("they buy time, but minutes only".




And then to consider camps... filled with scared, lonely, traumatized, children... good f*cking God...

Hmm

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
As said, Immigration is destroying the world, are people not getting that?

Ironic, coming from an American.

Originally posted by Nephthys
Ironic, coming from an American.

...whose family immigrated to America at some point as well
LOL double standards

Oh look the dumb gorilla showed up. Has nothing else to do I guess.

Why are you saying immigration is destroying the world?

Because he's a rancid bowl of prawn juice masquerading as a human.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Because he's a rancid bowl of prawn juice masquerading as a human.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial LPjzfGChGlE
nuff said

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Because he's a rancid bowl of prawn juice masquerading as a human.

I must have picked up that disease from Canada, seems a lot of that is going around up there in the place no one cares about. We like Mexico more then we do Canada down here. At least the Mexicans want work.

Originally posted by Gorilla
...whose family immigrated to America at some point as well
LOL double standards

So we get it, he said immigration was bad, but had ancestors that immigrated.

So if he had ancestors that were slave owners and he said slavery is bad..is that a double standard too?

Originally posted by Surtur
So we get it, he said immigration was bad, but had ancestors that immigrated.

So if he had ancestors that were slave owners and he said slavery is bad..is that a double standard too?



#owned

Originally posted by Surtur
So we get it, he said immigration was bad, but had ancestors that immigrated.

So if he had ancestors that were slave owners and he said slavery is bad..is that a double standard too? Are you saying that people immigrating into America, and founding the US, was a bad thing?

Originally posted by Beniboybling
Are you saying that people immigrating into America, and founding the US, was a bad thing?

I simply was wondering if we apply the genius logic of "you best agree with the shit your ancestors did" to everything or not.

To answer your question no I don't think it was a bad idea. But you see the world was a vastly different place at that time.

Originally posted by Surtur
To answer your question no I don't think it was a bad idea. But you see the world was a vastly different place at that time. That's what I said about gun rights

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
That's what I said about gun rights

Which would also be true: when the 2nd amendment was written the country was a vastly different place.

There was a time when this country desperately needed immigrants so of course we welcomed them with open arms.

Originally posted by Surtur
I simply was wondering if we apply the genius logic of "you best agree with the shit your ancestors did" to everything or not.

To answer your question no I don't think it was a bad idea. But you see the world was a vastly different place at that time. But seeing as you appear to agree in this case with "the shit your ancestors" did, that makes the comparison rather faulty. If you approved of the slavery committed by your ancestors and then came out saying slavery today was bad, you would be a hypocrite yes.

That immigration is no longer viable in today's world is a different point entirely. But what do you mean by that anyway?

So immigration makes sense when we dont have the jobs for the people that are currently living here?

Time will tell if George Friedman was right or not. He argued that as this century wears on, and Western birth rates plummet, we'll be fighting over immigrants just to maintain our own numbers.

Roy Beck>Freidman

Glenn Beck>Elmo.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
But seeing as you appear to agree in this case with "the shit your ancestors" did, that makes the comparison rather faulty. If you approved of the slavery committed by your ancestors and then came out saying slavery today was bad, you would be a hypocrite yes.

But it doesn't make the comparison faulty because I'm talking about how in general this logic is f*cking stupid. Because your ancestors immigrated here doesn't mean you need to be okay with immigration as it currently is. It by no means makes one hypocritical.



My point is the situation isn't so black and white that it's valid to say "well we are a nation of immigrants" as *any* kind of defense against someone talking against immigration.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
So immigration makes sense when we dont have the jobs for the people that are currently living here? Hold on TI, you said immigration was destroying the world - seems like you are against the concept in general.

nah

LPjzfGChGlE

Can I get an ETA on when we'll be allowed to immigrate TI? I was thinking of moving somewhere sunnier.

When you brexit.

Immigration should be fair should it not?

Originally posted by Surtur
But it doesn't make the comparison faulty because I'm talking about how in general this logic is f*cking stupid. Because your ancestors immigrated here doesn't mean you need to be okay with immigration as it currently is. It by no means makes one hypocritical.

My point is the situation isn't so black and white that it's valid to say "well we are a nation of immigrants" as *any* kind of defense against someone talking against immigration. Fair enough. But the positive impact immigration has done for your country, over the course of many years, is a point.

Another shocking immigration video

muw22wTePqQ

Originally posted by Beniboybling
Fair enough. But the positive impact immigration has done for your country, over the course of many years, is a point.

Yes, but surely you can agree something that has in the past had a positive impact won't necessarily always be a positive impact as the country changes.

Especially as our own population grows and there seems to be less and less jobs here and more and more you hear of businesses moving their factories to Mexico or something.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
Fair enough. But the positive impact immigration has done for your country, over the course of many years, is a point.

Drinking water is great, if you are forced to drink to much you will die. Simple concept.

Originally posted by Surtur
Yes, but surely you can agree something that has in the past had a positive impact won't necessarily always be a positive impact as the country changes.

Especially as our own population grows and there seems to be less and less jobs here and more and more you hear of businesses moving their factories to Mexico or something.

Importing people and exporting jobs is the progressive mindset.

inCUtR9RSKc

This one is really good, debunks all the "facts"

Originally posted by Surtur
Yes, but surely you can agree something that has in the past had a positive impact won't necessarily always be a positive impact as the country changes.

Especially as our own population grows and there seems to be less and less jobs here and more and more you hear of businesses moving their factories to Mexico or something. I believe its a question of moderation, immigration was probably less in the past than it is today.

So bring in as many people as possible while sending the jobs to all the places people are immigrating from, care to explain that logic?

Originally posted by Beniboybling
I believe its a question of moderation, immigration was probably less in the past than it is today. Most of the time. Table 1 of the 2014 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics gives a rundown of the amount of people given Lawful Permanent Resident Status every year since 1820.


It's been about 1 million a year since 2005. But 1905 saw 1 million for the first time. 1907 is third highest on the whole list with 1.2 million. The top year was 1991 with 1.8 million.


As a percentage of the preexisting population, those 19th-to-early-20th century numbers were huge additions. The last 10 years looks like a decrease in that regard.

The video above explains why 1 million a year does not work.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
The video above explains why 1 million a year does not work.

Depends who it works for. Economic growth requires population growth. A lot of western countries have such low birth rates that without immigration the tax paying working age population wouldn't be able to sustain the retired population in terms of pensions for public sector workers.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Another shocking immigration video

muw22wTePqQ

Ok Jaden, just watch this so we can discuss your last point.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Ok Jaden, just watch this so we can discuss your last point.

Will give it a watch after work tonight 👍

I can't help but wonder how it's always "america first" and not "the american people first".

Same with almost any government and country. I think it's telling of a mindset where the GDP is more important than the people, and it doesn't matter if all the money goes to a few select big businesses.

Lol @ the notion that we don't "need" immigration today, and this justifies the double standard.

We're pretty screwed without immigration on both sides of the ladder; we need more low skilled workers, and we also need more highly technical ones. Just the US population as it is today is not going to win us the global talent war, not when other nations are glad to pick the best and brightest to come work for them.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
inCUtR9RSKc

This one is really good, debunks all the "facts"

Actually this guy proves you wrong.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Actually this guy proves you wrong.

"Myth" 1 and 2: The guy vaguely claims that things are differently now because we've created borders. Note the is-ought fallacy/purely circular argument. You know, just like you.

"Myth" 3: The guy claims they don't assimilate, with his one piece of evidence being that he still sees people who have accents. (???) Then H

"Myth" 4: He claims that immigration increase crime, with his one piece of evidence being news headlines (lol).

"Myth" 5: He claims that society is declining because immigration has declined. Of course, we're supposed to take his word on this...because he says so...lol.

You obviously didn't watch the video. Try again.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
This can explain exactly how I feel, better then I can explain. With 100% truth and facts.

LPjzfGChGlE

You didn't watch this one either.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
You obviously didn't watch the video. Try again.


Sweetie, nobody sees you as such an authority to take your bluffing seriously. I've given my points; now the onus is on you to respond to them, or STFU. That's how intelligent discussion works.

Originally posted by The Ellimist
Sweetie, nobody sees you as such an authority to take your bluffing seriously. I've given my points; now the onus is on you to respond to them, or STFU. That's how intelligent discussion works.

Reported

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial

You didn't watch this one either.

Dude, that guy's entire argument against immigration is on humanitarian grounds, .i.e. he would support my opposition to "America first".

Originally posted by The Ellimist
Dude, that guy's entire argument against immigration is on humanitarian grounds, .i.e. he would support my opposition to "America first".

"Dude" we are done, concession accepted and welcome to my ignore list.

OH NOES!!!!!!!!!

I was responding to the OP.

Generally skip your posts.